The Mary's Children

Gamb it woudld be interesting if Carlo and Elizabeth had a child named Phillip or Louis before they died because it means that Philip II holding would be divided into Spain, England-Burgandy, and Italian holdings. The Italian Holding would go to his 3rd son and might lead to an earlier Italian unification. Spain would go to his grandson and England-Burgandy would be inherited by Henry XI.

I don't quite buy this, sorry. From what I've studied, there was no belief there that Milan should be an independent entity. It was simply too valuable to Spain. It held open the Spanish Road - the military supply line from the Med, up through Milan and Genoa to Franche Comte and the Netherlands; it was an important bastion to ensure Spanish control of the North of Italy against the French and against any trouble-making Italians; it was an important economic centre and it was a prize possession. Any potential third son would be given titles and land, but no Milan. Maybe they would get the contemporary Duchy of Parma - a fief state carved out of a bit of Milan but very much considered part of the Hapsburg Empire and under Milanese suzerainty - but Milan was too important to hand away to another son, who's descendants would be all too likely to turn against their former family. An independent England could be trusted, largely as France was too much of England's enemy for England to be thought to side with it against Spain for long, and this was pretty much the case, but an independent Milan would be a second rate, even third rate power, and not even the uncontested strongest state in Italy. It would have to be expected that it would forsake ties to Spain to further its own gains, and France would be a sideshow for Milan, so the Spanish couldn't expect them to feel obliged to turn back to their kinsmen regularly. No, far more likely within a generation an independent Milan would start fighting Venice and Florence for dominance in Italy, and with the shifting alliances it's entirely feasible that they would side against a Spanish alliance to do so.

Also, the talk of Italian Unification is something of a modern-day phenomenon. Most people here when they talk about the Italian states seem to have an interest in shoe-horning in a Kingdom of Italy. This wouldn't happen. Italy showed no interest whatsoever in unification before the sudden rise of Italian nationalism around the early 19th century. In fact I'd go so far as to say than Italy was one of the most anti-unification regions around. When one state threatened to dominate Italy, the rest of them would group together to smack it down a level. This is the reason that the Italian Wars went on so long. Coalitions would happily form to oppose rising states, but all too often a successful defence would actually just cause the leader of the coalition to become the new threat, all of its allies would desert to the recently defeated country and the war would start again. The sancrosanctity of the Papal States' independence was a key motivator in keeping Italy dominance-free, too, and the Popes were all too happy to take a leading role in forming these Coalitions. A Hapsburg enthroned independently in Milan would only add to this, especially as in this era the Papacy was in a Franco-Hispanic struggle, with the College of Cardinals fighting over French and Spanish supremacy. With a Hapsburg sovereign in Milan, the tide could fell flow strongly towards the French.
 
Would they? It seems to me that Spain and the Habsburg had a wish to unify the Iberian peninsula under one state, wouldn't a second son be more likely to end up in Milan instead.

It's not completely up to them actually to decide. Philip II was elected by the Portuguese Courts as the new king of Portugal. With other circunstances the votes could have gone other way, with the courts chosing a second son to preserve Portuguese independence but at the same time appeasing the Habsburgs.
 
It's not completely up to them actually to decide. Philip II was elected by the Portuguese Courts as the new king of Portugal. With other circunstances the votes could have gone other way, with the courts chosing a second son to preserve Portuguese independence but at the same time appeasing the Habsburgs.

Philip bribed a number of the members of the Portuguese Cortes to support him - when it became obvious that they wouldn't win the election and that their duplicity had been found out, those members fled the country. As I recall, Antonio, Prior of Crato was the outstanding candidate in government while the Braganzas were popular in one area of Portugal but not in Lisbon. It wasn't until Philip marched an army into Portugal and defeated Antonio, thus ending all organised military resistance in Portugal, that he was able to crown himself. If he hadn't effectively claimed the throne by right of conquest Philip wouldn't have gained the Portuguese throne, he wasn't popular enough there.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Philip bribed a number of the members of the Portuguese Cortes to support him - when it became obvious that they wouldn't win the election and that their duplicity had been found out, those members fled the country. As I recall, Antonio, Prior of Crato was the outstanding candidate in government while the Braganzas were popular in one area of Portugal but not in Lisbon. It wasn't until Philip marched an army into Portugal and defeated Antonio, thus ending all organised military resistance in Portugal, that he was able to crown himself. If he hadn't effectively claimed the throne by right of conquest Philip wouldn't have gained the Portuguese throne, he wasn't popular enough there.

That would be a good argument that Portugal stay in union with Spain as long as they aren't thrown out forcefully.
 
Philip bribed a number of the members of the Portuguese Cortes to support him - when it became obvious that they wouldn't win the election and that their duplicity had been found out, those members fled the country. As I recall, Antonio, Prior of Crato was the outstanding candidate in government while the Braganzas were popular in one area of Portugal but not in Lisbon. It wasn't until Philip marched an army into Portugal and defeated Antonio, thus ending all organised military resistance in Portugal, that he was able to crown himself. If he hadn't effectively claimed the throne by right of conquest Philip wouldn't have gained the Portuguese throne, he wasn't popular enough there.

Antonio was the candidate of the commoners, while Catarina de Braganza was supported by part of the nobility. But the majority of the nobles supported Philip II for many reasons besides the bribery. Philip paid the ransom of a good part of the nobles imprisoned in Morocco during the Battle of Ksar-el-Kebir, and so the nobility felt they were in debt with him. Also, the Cardinal-King Henry supported Philip over Catarina and Antonio, as he disliked both (much more Antonio, who was seen as a bastard) and believed that Spain would provide a better protection to Portugal in that weak moment (as the Portuguese army was destroyed in Morocco). If Sebastian still dies childless but the battle never happens there would be few pressures to ensure the election of the Spanish king and an Iberian Union.
 
Modified Slightly:

In 1554 Queen Mary I of England fell pregnant by her husband King Philip II of Spain. Later that year she had a boy, which they named Henry in honour of her father being the 'Defender of the Faith' by the Pope. A year later Mary I fell pregnant again by the same husband, she gave birth to a baby girl who they named Isabella in honour of Philip II's mother. Mary I fell slightly ill but she was strong with a husband that respected her and two children to have to look after in the absence of their father.

In 1566 Mary I died, during her time bringing up her children though she had married her son Henry to his cousin, Elisabeth of Austria, who was 12 at the time. She had also made an agreement with Joan of Austria that her daughter, Isabella, would be married to her second cousin (Joan's son) Sebastian of Portugal when she came of age (at this time Isabella was 9 while Sebastian was 12.)

Also in 1560 Philip II's son Carlos finally married Elisabeth who he'd been betrothed to since 1559. After a supposedly 'accidental' fall Carlos' health deteriorated further and so he was put away by order of his father. Elisabeth joined him and mysteriously years later they had both died on the same night. Elisabeth had 5 miscarriages or stillborn children, most likely due to the serious amount of inbreeding that Carlos' ancestors had gone through.

Philip II proceeded to marry his niece and had 3 children with her, all were boys but had major mental illnesses due to the inbreeding. The only healthy children Philip had left were Henry and Isabella, both from Mary I of England. Philip chose that, rather than have his son Henry take the throne, he'd have his mentally challenged son take the throne, Philip (different to OTL Philip III.)

Also Sebastian and Isabella at the ages of 21 and 18 (respectively) had a child together after 3 miscarriages (most likely due to his inbreeding ancestors also), a son by the name of John, and a year later they had another son by the name of Edward. Secure in the knowledge his succession was secure Sebastian created an armada against the Kingdom of Morocco, he died on this crusade and so his 2 year old son, John, took the throne, with a number of Portuguese royalists acting as his regents. John also had frequent visits from his cousin Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I of England.)

Spain was ran by a regent after Philip IIs death as Philip III was incapable of ruling on his own. Also Henry IX had 2 children with his wife, both of whom were girls. He named the first after his recently deceased aunt, Elizabeth and she was born in 1570. And the second after Elisabeth's mother, Maria.

Due to Elizabeth frequently visiting John during his childhood, she and John grew a relationship together. Soon the two fell in love and this was seen as the perfect opportunity to create a powerful state, and so the two were married, John was 14 and Elizabeth was 16.

This latest couple had 5 healthy children, the first being a boy called Sebastian. In 1617, a year after Henry's golden jubilee, he passed away probably due to a tumor. His daughter Elizabeth came to the throne and was coronated as Elizabeth I of England, with her husband John IV of Portugal ruling as a co-heir.

Soon after John IV had died of a kidney stone and cancer in 1620, and so his first son Sebastian became Sebastian II of Portugal. Sebastian became the regent to Elizabeth I who became mad after the death of her husband. This meant that Sebastian had grown to be well known in the English court and was liked by most of the new catholic courtiers.

Philip III of Spain died with no children, leading to a succession crisis in Spain. His two other brothers by Philip II and Anna had died with no heirs. Sebastian II of Portugal immediately stepped up, proclaiming he was the most viable to be king. Though the Spanish court wouldn't allow it soon Elizabeth I of England demanded her son be put on the throne, though days later, in 1622 she died by suicide. Now Sebastian II of Portugal was also crowned Sebastian I of England. With this new power behind him Sebastian ordered the Spanish court he be crowned as King, and the Spanish court relented and crowned him Sebastian I of Spain.

I've added a few possibilities in here as well :) This is also a very rough overview of it all.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. A few thoughts, however:

Mary respected her father even though after the birth of Elizabeth he treated her like dirt, even commanding her to become a mere servant in her baby sister's household. However, to Philip Henry was anathema, for betraying the Catholic faith. Remember that when Henry turned against the Pope he retained the title Defender of the Faith, turning it into a Protestant title, which is why the British monarchs still use it in their style. Mary might choose the name Henry but it would only be over strenuous objections from her husband. It might still happen though.

Sebastian I of Portugal, to be the best of my memory, was not really inbred. He wasn't a Hapsburg, for a start, and it was really only the Hapsburgs who put the need for alliances over the need to observe consanguinity.

If Henry has been crowned King of England he won't become John's regent. The needs of ruling his country would prevent him from leaving England as Parliaments and the nobility tended to take dim views of monarchs who spent most of their time abroad. Similarly, the Portuguese would never agree to have John sent to England, he would have to be kept in Portugal - they would view anything different as an attack on their independence. Rather, his regency would be under several powerful nobles. This is essentially the way things worked every time.

You could question John and Elizabeth's marriage, being against Catholic law for consanguinity. Of course, this is now the Hapsburgs we're dealing with, so maybe not...

Mmmm...another suicide death. I'm really not sure where these come from, they seem to crop up a lot in TLs on this website. You should bear in mind that suicide was an extremely grave offence in this era. God's Law, as believed both by Catholic and Protestant alike, dictates that taking your own life is an instant condemnation to an eternity in Hell. This may be the era of Purgatory, and the belief that you can be prayed out of Hell, but suicide was unchallengeable - if you commit suicide you can never enter Heaven. Especially in this era of hyper-piety, suicide simply wasn't an option to 99.999% of living people. I honestly can't think of a single historical suicide (by a Christian) before about the 19th century, by which time commitment to the faith was waning and so was the believe in the perils of suicide.

Also, you've mixed up John and Sebastian in the last storyline paragraph.




Anyway, some suggestions to mull over. You don't have to agree with any of them if you don't want to, naturally.

Incidentally, with Henry seemingly not very experienced in Spain, it would be interesting to see what becomes of Protestantism in England (and Burgundy if the Anglo-Burgundian inheritance happened here). I still tend to rather take the view that unless England is occupied by Spanish troops then the Protestant nobles will, as soon as Philip's back is turned and Mary is dead, be tenacious enough as to try to give any child heir a Protestant upbringing, at least in part, and that any monarch who tries to be fully Catholic will struggle to preserve their rule in England without undertaking substantial initiatives. But that's just my viewpoint, and admittedly it comes from a Protestant...
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Inbreeding doen't work this way, even if you marry your sister, most of the children will come out okay, it only raise the chance of defect not ensure that it will happen. Beside Carlos and Elizabeth wasn't closely related they had not one Grandparent in common, so it's quite unlikely that if Carlos succed in producing children, that they will all be stillborn, especially because his father (who had rather close genes to Carlos*) succed in getting children with her.


*likely around 75% rather than the normal 50%
 
Interesting. A few thoughts, however:

Mary respected her father even though after the birth of Elizabeth he treated her like dirt, even commanding her to become a mere servant in her baby sister's household. However, to Philip Henry was anathema, for betraying the Catholic faith. Remember that when Henry turned against the Pope he retained the title Defender of the Faith, turning it into a Protestant title, which is why the British monarchs still use it in their style. Mary might choose the name Henry but it would only be over strenuous objections from her husband. It might still happen though.

Sebastian I of Portugal, to be the best of my memory, was not really inbred. He wasn't a Hapsburg, for a start, and it was really only the Hapsburgs who put the need for alliances over the need to observe consanguinity.

If Henry has been crowned King of England he won't become John's regent. The needs of ruling his country would prevent him from leaving England as Parliaments and the nobility tended to take dim views of monarchs who spent most of their time abroad. Similarly, the Portuguese would never agree to have John sent to England, he would have to be kept in Portugal - they would view anything different as an attack on their independence. Rather, his regency would be under several powerful nobles. This is essentially the way things worked every time.

You could question John and Elizabeth's marriage, being against Catholic law for consanguinity. Of course, this is now the Hapsburgs we're dealing with, so maybe not...

Mmmm...another suicide death. I'm really not sure where these come from, they seem to crop up a lot in TLs on this website. You should bear in mind that suicide was an extremely grave offence in this era. God's Law, as believed both by Catholic and Protestant alike, dictates that taking your own life is an instant condemnation to an eternity in Hell. This may be the era of Purgatory, and the belief that you can be prayed out of Hell, but suicide was unchallengeable - if you commit suicide you can never enter Heaven. Especially in this era of hyper-piety, suicide simply wasn't an option to 99.999% of living people. I honestly can't think of a single historical suicide (by a Christian) before about the 19th century, by which time commitment to the faith was waning and so was the believe in the perils of suicide.

Also, you've mixed up John and Sebastian in the last storyline paragraph.




Anyway, some suggestions to mull over. You don't have to agree with any of them if you don't want to, naturally.

Incidentally, with Henry seemingly not very experienced in Spain, it would be interesting to see what becomes of Protestantism in England (and Burgundy if the Anglo-Burgundian inheritance happened here). I still tend to rather take the view that unless England is occupied by Spanish troops then the Protestant nobles will, as soon as Philip's back is turned and Mary is dead, be tenacious enough as to try to give any child heir a Protestant upbringing, at least in part, and that any monarch who tries to be fully Catholic will struggle to preserve their rule in England without undertaking substantial initiatives. But that's just my viewpoint, and admittedly it comes from a Protestant...

The point about Henry is a good one, I'd argue that due to Mary being 17 at the time of separation she was brought up by a Catholic, and so could name her son after her catholic father, not the protestant one (if you get what I'm trying to say...)

Gonzaga has already explained the point on Sebastian being inbred :)

Good point about Johns regency... So Henry wouldn't be his regent but, as a Hapsburg, I believe Elizabeth would still marry John.

Queen Elizabeth I only committed suicide due to her madness. Remember she was already a result of inbreeding previously in the family, and after her husband, who she was obsessed with (much like her ancestor Joanna of Castile.) Due to this and the pressure of trying to place her son as King of Spain she couldn't handle it and committed suicide through her madness.

Thank you about telling me about the mix up, I'll sort it out soon.

Henry IX, though a strong king, is also quite open minded about religions and so passed this view onto his daughter Elizabeth etc.

Thanks for the questions :) I like to answer them and it gives me something to think about.

Inbreeding doen't work this way, even if you marry your sister, most of the children will come out okay, it only raise the chance of defect not ensure that it will happen. Beside Carlos and Elizabeth wasn't closely related they had not one Grandparent in common, so it's quite unlikely that if Carlos succed in producing children, that they will all be stillborn, especially because his father (who had rather close genes to Carlos*) succed in getting children with her.


*likely around 75% rather than the normal 50%

The ones that were stillborn or were miscarriages were more due to the fact that in that age those were simply reasonably common, the other children who I may've died by being 'stillborn' when born I meant that they died soon after birth due to birth defects that affected them to the extent they couldn't survive. (It's just my mistake as putting them as being stillborn :eek:)

The thing with Carlos and Elisabeth was that Carlos was a result of a family chain of tonnes of inbreeding beforehand and also the fact he himself was mentally unstable.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The thing with Carlos and Elisabeth was that Carlos was a result of a family chain of tonnes of inbreeding beforehand and also the fact he himself was mentally unstable.


The problem is that defect resulting from inbreeding, is that they're recessive, which mean that they don't show themself, if you get children with one whom lack the genes (which Elizabeth would), it simply doesn't matter how inbreed Carlos is if he marry Elizabeth, the children won't inherent them, through they may return in their children, if the children marry a close relative.
 
The problem is that defect resulting from inbreeding, is that they're recessive, which mean that they don't show themself, if you get children with one whom lack the genes (which Elizabeth would), it simply doesn't matter how inbreed Carlos is if he marry Elizabeth, the children won't inherent them, through they may return in their children, if the children marry a close relative.

But surely (let's say his madness and anger was a kind of genetic thing) this would pass onto his children?
 

Susano

Banned
But surely (let's say his madness and anger was a kind of genetic thing) this would pass onto his children?

Actually yes, but only in the genotype, not the phenotype. As Valdemar says, it wont express itself - the children wont have the defect, but could pass it on to their children (if the other side has or carries the defect, too).
 
Top